EDHEC-Risk Concept Industry Analysis Featured Analysis Latest EDHEC-Risk Surveys Features Interviews Indexes and Benchmarking FTSE EDHEC-Risk Efficient Index Series FTSE EDHEC-Risk ERAFP SRI Index EDHEC-Risk Alternative Indexes EDHEC-Risk IEIF Commercial Property Indices Hedge Fund Index Research Equity Index Research Amundi ETF "Core-Satellite and ETF Investment" Research Chair EDHEC-Risk Institute Solvency II Benchmarks Index Regulation and Transparency ERI Scientific Beta Performance and Risk Reporting Hedge Fund Performance EuroPerformance/EDHEC-Risk Institute Style Ratings Performance Measurement for Traditional Investment CACEIS "New Frontiers in Risk Assessment and Performance Reporting" Research Chair Asset Allocation and Alternative Diversification Real Assets Meridiam Infrastructure/Campbell Lutyens "Infrastructure Equity Investment Management and Benchmarking" Research Chair Natixis "Investment and Governance Characteristics of Infrastructure Debt Instruments" Research Chair Newedge "Advanced Modelling for Alternative Investments" Research Chair CME Group "Exploring the Commodity Futures Risk Premium: Implications for Asset Allocation and Regulation" Strategic Research Project Asset Allocation and Derivative Instruments Volatility Research Eurex "The Benefits of Volatility Derivatives in Equity Portfolio Management" Strategic Research Project SGCIB "Structured Investment Strategies" Research ALM and Asset Allocation Solutions ALM and Private Wealth Management AXA Investment Managers "Regulation and Institutional Investment" Research Chair BNP Paribas Investment Partners "ALM and Institutional Investment Management" Research Chair Deutsche Bank "Asset-Liability Management Techniques for Sovereign Wealth Fund Management" Research Chair Lyxor "Risk Allocation Solutions" Research Chair Merrill Lynch Wealth Management "Risk Allocation Framework for Goal-Driven Investing Strategies" Research Chair Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan "Advanced Investment Solutions for Liability Hedging for Inflation Risk" Research Chair Rothschild & Cie "The Case for Inflation-Linked Corporate Bonds: Issuers' and Investors' Perspectives" Research Chair Russell Investments "Solvency II" Research Chair Non-Financial Risks, Regulation and Innovations Risk and Regulation in the European Fund Management Industry Index Regulation and Transparency Best Execution: MiFID and TCA Mitigating Hedge Funds Operational Risks FBF "Innovations and Regulations in Investment Banking" Research Chair EDHEC-Risk Publications All EDHEC-Risk Publications EDHEC-Risk Position Papers IPE EDHEC-Risk Institute Research Insights AsianInvestor EDHEC-Risk Institute Research Insights P&I EDHEC-Risk Institute Research for Institutional Money Management Books EDHEC-Risk Newsletter Events Events organised by EDHEC-Risk Institute EDHEC-Risk Days Europe 2015, London, 24-25 March, 2015 Events involving EDHEC-Risk Institute's participation EDHEC-Risk Institute Presentation Research Programmes Research Chairs and Strategic Research Projects Partnership International Advisory Board Team EDHEC-Risk News EDHEC-Risk Newsletter EDHEC-Risk Press Releases EDHEC-Risk in the Press Careers EDHEC Risk Institute-Asia EDHEC Business School EDHEC-Risk Executive Education EDHEC-Risk Institute PhD in Finance Yale School of Management - EDHEC-Risk Institute Certificate in Risk and Investment Management Investment Management Seminars Understanding, Designing and Testing Quantitative Risk Models Seminar, Singapore, 20 August, 2014 Contact EDHEC-Risk Executive Education Contact Us ERI Scientific Beta
Industry News
Asset Management - December 05, 2012

Libor consequences for asset managers

By Dr Arjuna Sittampalam, Research Associate with EDHEC-Risk Institute and Editor, Investment Management Review

The post-mortem on the much-publicised Libor rate rigging scandal is well underway in the world’s financial capitals. What is important to fund managers is how the false rates might have affected investors in the past, and what their future options are in terms of Libor or a possible alternative for contracts based on short-term interest rates.

Usage of Libor by asset managers is tiny compared with the overall volume of contracts where Libor figures, the most substantial proportion of which occur in the estimated $500trn derivatives market. Nevertheless, there are important contracts involving asset managers.

Pension funds with interest rate swaps linked to Libor will have benefited or lost according to which side of the contract they were on. Similar considerations apply to their purchasing loan agreements linked to Libor, packaged as asset-backed securities.

Floating rate notes comprise another area of interest, but possibly the most important of the potential impacts concern performance fee agreements where fund managers, largely hedge funds, base their performance fees on outperforming Libor. Absolute return funds also come into this category. These funds have been run not only for the retail public but also, for decades, for many institutional and corporate investors in the Middle East, Japan and elsewhere that have been seeking returns exceeding short-term interest rates and paying fees accordingly. Now that fund managers are getting into the bank lending business, Libor becomes relevant here too for some of the deals.

As to the actual impact of past gains or losses, most investment industry commentators, including pension funds, profess not to have the slightest idea. This is understandable, since to start with there is no precise estimate of how much rigging was actually done or for how long. The only certainty is that there was manipulation.

The authorities and banks are now vigorously looking for an alternative. One that is most often talked about is based on a repurchase rate (Repo) index. Two banks, UBS and Nomura, are among those testing the GCF Repo index published by the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, the group that clears and settles financial contracts. Unlike Libor, this is based on actual rates paid for the repurchase agreements that are a crucial source of short-term funding.

But it is feared that the Repo alternative might be more capable of being manipulated. Sharon Bowles, Chair of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee in the European Parliament, has announced her strong opposition. She feels that Repo markets are not always transparent and the idea has been attacked in the Capital Requirements Directive.

The US Treasury has suggested that it might issue floating rate notes that will fluctuate with the above Repo index. This would strengthen the case for the use of the index. When the volume of these notes grow, the demand for derivatives based on these would also increase, setting in motion a virtuous circle whereby the Repo index will give rise to a market with widespread acceptance.

One problem here is that US Treasury issues might, during times of panic, get distorted by demand from investors seeking safety.

Another possibility is to use overnight index swaps which track market expectations for central bank rates, but these are lower than Libor and would thus entail a subsidy to borrowers. The alternative is to adjust these OIS rates using credit default swap rates to reflect bank credit risk, but this involves the unsatisfactory route of setting cash interest rates through derivatives contracts.

Moving away from Libor involves huge costs. Are these worth the benefits of getting a more reliable and transparent benchmark for derivatives and other contracts? There is a huge practical problem as well. Millions of contracts will need to be re-negotiated individually and, since the parties on either side will be affected in opposite ways, either winning or losing, reaching agreements might be a nightmare. This factor alone could ensure Libor’s survival.

But authorities and others are muttering about making sure that Libor is based on actual transactions or that the banks are obliged to deal at a minimal level at the rate they quote, rather than providing an estimate that they do not actually deal at. The problem is that banks might be unwilling to do so and that the Libor market collapses. This danger is particularly acute at durations of six and 12 months, where transactions are sparse. The Bank of England, among others, is reported to be drawing up contingency plans for the possibility of such a collapse.

So what are fund managers to do? Many of them will possibly just muddle through, continuing with Libor, but others might individually fix some rate which offers stability. But, given the lack of a universal consensus on what this rate should be, every asset management house needs to consider an individual solution together with its client or counterparty.



Reference

  • Investment Management Review, October 2012
(www.imrmagazine.com, enquiries@sageandhermes.com)

 
     


EDHEC-Risk Alternative Indexes: Jun 2014 (Estimates)
Conv. Arb. 0.46%
CTA Global 1.05%
Dist. Sec. 1.40%
Emg. Mkts 1.30%
Eq. Mkt Neut. 0.27%
Event Driven 1.47%
Fix. Inc. Arb. 0.54%
Global Macro 0.56%
L/S Equity 1.33%
Merger Arb. 0.84%
Rel. Value 0.85%
Short Selling -2.23%
FoF 0.95%

EDHEC-Risk IEIF Commercial Property: June 2014
Price (FR) 0.14%
Total Return (FR) 0.14%